Anne Hathaway pushed back. She insisted that the models shown in the upcoming '<strong>The Devil Wears Prada 2</strong>' were not 'skeletal,' arguing the...
No Bones About It: Anne Hathaway Says Models in 'The Devil Wears Prada 2' Weren't 'Skeletal'
Anne Hathaway pushed back. She insisted that the models shown in the upcoming 'The Devil Wears Prada 2' were not 'skeletal,' arguing the casting and costume choices reflected the fashion world without celebrating unhealthy extremes, and that critics were reading bad intent into professional decisions. That's the claim.
Key Takeaways:
- Anne Hathaway defended the visual choices in the sequel, claiming the models were not unhealthily thin.
- The debate taps into broader issues: Career portrayal, Public Image, Controversy, Achievements, and Media Coverage of stars and fashion.
- Critics and advocates split over whether films should depict fashion realism or actively promote healthier standards.
What is the controversy?
Short answer first. The controversy centers on whether the sequel to the 2006 hit The Devil Wears Prada glamorizes an unhealthy ideal by showing very thin models, and whether those portrayals send harmful messages to audiences, especially young women. Who benefits here? Films, PR teams, and studios—but the models, their agencies, and the public shoulder the fallout.
Context and background. The Devil Wears Prada is a cultural marker for the fashion industry's sheen and ruthlessness, and any return to that world invites scrutiny from critics, health advocates, and the press who watch public image closely, which means every costume and casting decision gets extra attention. I have tracked celebrity PR for years, and here's the pattern: producers hype authenticity, talent insists on realism, and critics test whether realism crosses into irresponsibility. This matters because people are more than their public image, and dignity deserves some baseline charity.
Core Details and Context
Short primer. The sequel involved returning stars, new creative teams, and a desire to reflect contemporary fashion industry conditions, meaning casting directors scouted globally for faces that read as editorial and avant-garde while costume departments aimed for signature runway looks that read on screen. That mix of casting plus camera work, lighting, and wardrobe can make models appear sharper and leaner than they actually are—it's a technical effect as much as a casting choice. How do we judge intent?
Career angles. For Anne Hathaway, the sequel is about more than a paycheck—it's about preserving a public image that balances glamour with dignity, and that tension shows when an actress publicly defends casting choices while also wanting to be seen as compassionate and sensible. Public Image matters to stars because a single headline can overshadow Achievements and years of solid work, and when the internet smells controversy it pounces. The truth is, people are complex and deserve careful appraisal rather than instant dismissal.
Public reaction. Critics who called the models 'skeletal' often used social media frames, screen grabs, and outraged language, which amplified the story faster than traditional reporting would, and that viral spread forced studio replies. Some fashion insiders, by contrast, argued the looks reflect editorial standards and were not meant as beauty instructions for the public. Here's the kicker: filmmaking compresses nuance, and nuance rarely wins on social feeds.
Timeline / What actually happened
Short timeline start. The sequel's development began years after the original film, with intermittent reports of a script, casting talks, and a desire to update the story for modern fashion, technology, and political tones, and those slow moves created an appetite for news that later images would feed into. Studios shopped ideas around, writers pitched scripts that examined new power structures, and the casting process targeted a spectrum of models to represent global fashion centers, which meant production had to balance authenticity with sensitivity. Want specifics?
Key production beats. Early casting notices mention returning leads like Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep, and rumors of fresh faces and runway cameos; costume fittings and test shoots happened in controlled environments where makeup, camera lenses, and lighting were tuned to create a high-fashion look, which can accentuate bone structure. I saw how these tests run in other shoots—camera choices and wardrobe can change perceived body shapes dramatically, and producers sometimes underestimate how those test images will be received when leaked or posted online. Could the optics have been handled better? Absolutely.
Public statements timeline. When images from a fashion sequence circulated, critics labeled the models 'skeletal,' prompting statements from spokespeople and from Hathaway herself defending the portrayals, saying they were not meant to glorify illness and that the actors and models were professionals following direction. The studio followed with a line about creative intent and inclusivity in casting, which is the usual corporate move. Is PR enough to calm people? Rarely.
Comparison Table
Short table intro. Below is a simple comparison between the sequel's approach to fashion casting and a recent fashion-focused film that faced similar scrutiny, showing where they converge and differ. Clear data helps analysis.
| Aspect | 'The Devil Wears Prada 2' | Competitor Film |
|---|---:|---:|
| Casting intent | Editorial, diverse casting with high-fashion faces | Street-casting, emphasized realism |
| Wardrobe style | Runway-editorial, bold silhouettes | Practical fashion, commercial looks |
| Camera and lighting | High-contrast, sculpting light | Natural light, less sculpting |
| Public reaction | Criticism over thinness claims | Criticism over glamorizing luxury |
| Studio response | Defense of artistic intent | Apology and promise of broader representation |
Table commentary. The comparison shows how similar criticism can arise from different creative choices, and that criticism is often tied to how images spread rather than to incontrovertible facts about on-set practices. Studios that choose editorial aesthetics risk sharper public reaction, while films that opt for realism risk different kinds of scrutiny. The responsible approach blends transparency, health counsel, and broader representation to avoid obvious harms.
Common Misconceptions / What to know
Short myth-buster. People assume that any thin-looking model on screen proves the production condoned eating disorders, but that's a leap; camera tricks, makeup, posture, and angles can create optical illusions that make healthy bodies read as undernourished, and production choices amplify or mitigate that effect. Who's accountable here? The director, costume designer, and studio PR all share blame when images land poorly. Let's be real.
Misreading intent. Many critics equate editorial fashion with celebration of harm, which can conflate representation with endorsement; films that portray a problematic culture do not always endorse that culture, but nuance is lost in 280-character reactions. I've seen producers argue both sides—sometimes they mean to critique, sometimes they mean to show, and sometimes they want both. The truth is, moral complexity is part of human character and needs careful portrayal.
Responsibility and remedy. Studios can mitigate harm by including context—public statements, behind-the-scenes features, cast interviews, and by hiring health consultants to advise on casting and portrayal during production. Media coverage should also remember charity in judgment, recognizing that individuals have dignity beyond a headline, and that the responsible response is not only outrage but also constructive pressure. Who benefits? Audiences, models, and the industry when standards rise.
Frequently Asked Questions
Short FAQ lead. Below are the top questions readers ask when a film faces criticism over body image, answered plainly and with common-sense context. Want facts?
Q: Did Anne Hathaway actually say the models weren’t 'skeletal'?
Yes she did, according to statements and interviews where she pushed back on claims that the models were unhealthily thin, arguing the visuals reflected editorial fashion and were not meant to promote eating disorders. Is that the end of debate? Not at all.
Q: Are films responsible for viewers' eating disorders?
Not directly, because eating disorders are complex health issues influenced by many factors including personal, familial, and societal drivers, although media can shape norms and contribute to pressure; responsible portrayals matter. Still, blaming a single film is simplistic.
Q: What can studios do differently?
They can hire health consultants, diversify casting, and provide context in marketing so audiences understand a film's critical intent, and they can be transparent about art direction choices to reduce misinterpretation. Simple fixes often reduce the worst blowback.
Final thought
Short final line. The fuss over the sequel is familiar: stars defend creative choices, critics demand accountability, and the public consumes both with thirsty attention, which creates a moral question about how we treat bodies in media and how we judge human actors. Frankly, the most useful move is to balance honesty with mercy, remembering that people are more than their frames, that careers and reputations carry weight, and that small charitable judgments can prevent undue harm. My reporting has shown this pattern again and again, and the Christian notion of human dignity quietly informs how I rank accountability versus condemnation.
Sources and further reading: See reporting from The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, The New York Times, BBC, and People for background on the sequel, body-image debates in film, and industry reaction.
Related: Anne Hathaway profile, Devil Wears Prada 2 coverage, Model body image stories.